None of that says the State Department never thought the attack was linked with a protest, as you claim.

Why would they think it was linked to a protest? THERE WAS NO PROTEST. I don't know how much more clear it could be. When it was almost dark the ambassador walked a guest out and there was no one there but security. Unless the security gaurds were protesting then there was no protest. The next people that showed up weren't protesting. They were attacking. People don't protest with RPG's and machine guns. People don't typically start a protest in the dark. It defeats the point if no one can see you protest. They do assault and attack at night. When the consulate called tripoli, the white house and the reaction team it was about an attack, not a protest.

I cannot believe the lengths that some of you will go to try to continue to accept the presidents story when no facts support it and they all show they have been lying. It's amazing.

Why would they think it was linked to a protest? THERE WAS NO PROTEST. I don't know how much more clear it could be. When it was almost dark the ambassador walked a guest out and there was no one there but security. Unless the security gaurds were protesting then there was no protest. The next people that showed up weren't protesting. They were attacking. People don't protest with RPG's and machine guns. People don't typically start a protest in the dark. It defeats the point if no one can see you protest. They do assault and attack at night. When the consulate called tripoli, the white house and the reaction team it was about an attack, not a protest.

I cannot believe the lengths that some of you will go to try to continue to accept the presidents story when no facts support it and they all show they have been lying. It's amazing.

In the days after the attack, exactly what happened was unclear. Many different streams of intelligence were being received by the State Department all at once, and they made their best estimate of the situation based on the entirety of what was going on in the region at that time.

You seem to be parsing what they said on the 16th of September, with what they later learned, and indeed reported in October. Are you trying to back date their October reporting of what happened to before Rice made her statement on the 16th of September? Worse, you seem to be coming to your own conclusions as to how such events transpire. Your speculation now has no greater merit than that of the State Department in the days following the attack.

In the days after the attack, exactly what happened was unclear. Many different streams of intelligence were being received by the State Department all at once, and they made their best estimate of the situation based on the entirety of what was going on in the region at that time.

You seem to be parsing what they said on the 16th of September, with what they later learned, and indeed reported in October. Are you trying to back date their October reporting of what happened to before Rice made her statement on the 16th of September? Worse, you seem to be coming to your own conclusions as to how such events transpire. Your speculation now has no greater merit than that of the State Department in the days following the attack.

Well, the State Department has more merit, because they're actually privy to first or second hand information - not spin doctor reports from butthurt pundits and bloggers.

-- The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

-- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

-- The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

But the committee's senior Republican, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said he doesn't think the issue is settled.

He said the concern is not whether the talking points were correct, but that Rice didn't go far enough.

"She knew at that point and time that al Qaeda was very likely responsible in part or in whole for the death of Ambassador Stevens," he said, intimating that Rice should have said that.

Chambliss is wrong. al Qaeda has never been directly implicated in the attack. The group responsible may have some ties to al Qaeda, but that is vastly different than saying al Qaeda itself was involved. How come those out for blood aren't after him for saying so? Because it doesn't fit their agenda, of course. Such behavior from those on the committee responsible for getting to the truth of the matter is beyond belief. And they still get away with it.

But you don't identify in as anything more than BS if it has no authority to it and this didn't seem to have anything more than Valarie or Barry's opinion and his would be because Valarie told him it was his opinion.